#52gbaji,
Posted:Dec 11 2012 at 6:54 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) And no amount of tax increases will fix things either. They will arguably make whatever problems you think exist worse though. Which is why it's a really dumb idea. You're being used as a tool for a political agenda that really has nothing at all to do with the things you think are important. Taxing the rich will do nothing at all with regard to improving things for the poor. Until you understand that, you will continue to make that false assumption and continue to support completely counter productive agendas.

For the last 12 years or so, corporations have decided that their employees don't need raises.

False. I work for a corporation, and even in the complete absence of a single labor law requiring my employer give me a raise, or a union forcing it via threatened strike, I've gotten some pretty significant raises over the last 12 years. My experience may not be completely typical in terms of scale, but it's certainly typical in the broad sense of "getting a raise". You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who has been working for the same corporation for the last 12 years and is worse off economically today than 12 years ago.

You're repeating a completely invention of the political left.

I have been at my current job 5 years total. The four consecutive years there had been one raise given company wide. I was gone a year and when returned my boss fought for me to be rehired at a slightly higher wage. Speaking with one employee that has been here 22 year, as time progressed he earned less. Bonuses disappeared, no raises were given for many years and work was taken from us.

I am not complaining in the least about my job or what I earn. Thinking, however, that this does not happen is ignorant. My bonus last year was a 50 dollar gift card and I was one of those that recieved a little more for my years here.

I remember when my roommate worked for Walmart. They gave everyone that worked there a gift for Christmas. You knows those individual Ziplock bags companies give away to try to get people to use their product. As much as I would hate to say it that made me laugh pretty hard.

I have been at my current job 5 years total. The four consecutive years there had been one raise given company wide.

Where the **** do you work? That's not typical at all. I have *never* worked for an employer who didn't provide some sort of raise (or at least raise opportunity) to every employee every year. What kind of business is this? Is it a corporation, or a smaller privately owned company? Is there something else that offsets this and prevents people from just leaving? Cause what you're describing sounds a lot more like a government or union workplace, and not a corporation operating in a free labor market.

Quote:

I was gone a year and when returned my boss fought for me to be rehired at a slightly higher wage.

Higher than starting pay? Higher than you were making when you left? Not really making a point here, but just curious.

Quote:

Speaking with one employee that has been here 22 year, as time progressed he earned less. Bonuses disappeared, no raises were given for many years and work was taken from us.

Work was taken from us? I'm not even sure what that means. Is it that this guy actually earns less than he did 22 years ago, or he just doesn't earn as much as he'd like and claims that? I know lots of people who say things that are straight up false just because they like to complain. And if that's actually true, why the **** did he stay there that long? Assuming he's at least as competent at his job as he was 22 years ago (and I'd assume moreso) he should be able to make more money somewhere else.

Quote:

I am not complaining in the least about my job or what I earn.

Which kinda calls into question the point that I was responding to. If you're happy with your pay, then it really doesn't matter how that pay comes about. Maybe your company was grossly overpaying people 20 years ago, and even without raises they're still paying a competitive wage today. I have no clue. Sometimes we get so caught up in the details (and often outlier details) that we miss the larger point: Wages are related to the value of the output of your labor. The more people are willing to pay for the goods and services you produce, the more you can demand from your employer in the form of wages. How that comes about is somewhat irrelevant.

Quote:

Thinking, however, that this does not happen is ignorant. My bonus last year was a 50 dollar gift card and I was one of those that recieved a little more for my years here.

So what? If things are so bad at your work, go work somewhere else. If they're not, then they're not. I'm primarily addressing this silly idea that we should justify higher taxes on rich people and big business because they're meanies who don't pay their employees enough money. But that idea just doesn't stand up to even the most basic rational examination. Strangely, a huge number of people continue to repeat it. I can guess as to the reasons why, but perhaps some of you who do repeat these sorts of assertions should examine yourselves for your motives.

And I'll point out that just because something happens at your place of work does not mean that's the norm. I received $9,000 in bonus (plus some number of RSUs) plus a 2.2% raise this year. Last year, I received $16,400 in bonus (plus some other number of RSUs) plus a 6.5% raise (must have been a good year). Is that typical? At my work, yes. Across all corporations? Some, but not all. But guess what? The pay method and structure at my place of employment is far more typical of what the stereotypical "big corporation" does in terms of labor than what you are describing. The problem is that people talk about big business, but they look almost exclusively at corporations which own retail chains (like WalMart). So basically a big business that owns and operates a bunch of small businesses. Then they complain about the lack of great pay and advancement in those stores, ignoring the fact that this is not indicative of being a large corporation so much as it's indicative of being in the retail business. Pay at WalMart is comparable to pay at any small retail store (like those small stores you see in malls), but with better benefits. Same deal with a company like Starbucks. Instead of trying to insist that those companies are typical of large corporations, realize that they are typical of stores selling the types of products they sell. Go work for a small single owner coffee shop sometime and tell us how the pay and benefits compare to Starbucks. Probably about the same or a little bit less.

It's not the size of the corporation that determines pay, but the business its involved in. But some people want to treat them all the same and punish those who pay very well because some of them don't pay well. That's unfair and it's arbitrary. If you are stocking store shelves, you aren't going to make as much money as someone who's designing microchips. That has nothing to do with the size of the company, but the actual value of the labor itself. I think we do the entire issue a disservice by trying to treat all corporations the same, or argue about CEO pay and cherry pick the ones that fit the narrative we want to use. Funny that no one uses Microsoft or Intel as examples of how corporations unfairly compensate their employees. Think about why, and you'll realize how fabricated this whole issue is.

I have been at my current job 5 years total. The four consecutive years there had been one raise given company wide.

Where the **** do you work? That's not typical at all. I have *never* worked for an employer who didn't provide some sort of raise (or at least raise opportunity) to every employee every year. What kind of business is this? Is it a corporation, or a smaller privately owned company? Is there something else that offsets this and prevents people from just leaving? Cause what you're describing sounds a lot more like a government or union workplace, and not a corporation operating in a free labor market.

I work in a non union factory, and from 2007 to 2011 I didn't receive a raise. Actually took a 10% mandatory pay cut in 2008. Also didn't receive any profit sharing contributions to 401k. They also don't match 401k contributions at all. And except for 2008 I didn't receive any bonuses (2008 was special circumstances involving 100+hour weeks on a 40 hour a week salary).

What stops employees from leaving? Nothing really, we have a very high turnover rate on employees. Probably about 65%+ of the hourly employees are temp workers from various manpower providers.

I work in a warehouse, LTL freight and TL (less then trailer load, trailer load). I agree that is not normal but it is relatively easy work for good pay, non-union. Starting on the dock is 11-13 an hr. Drivers I am not sure what they earn starting.

Quote:

Higher than starting pay? Higher than you were making when you left? Not really making a point here, but just curious.

Higher then I made when I left. From what I was told corporate already said I was paid enough. They gave into what my boss gave as a reason, which personally doesn't make sense to me. Claimed I would be doing more work then before, I came back doing less work as I do not now work both outbound and inbound. Just outbound.

Quote:

Work was taken from us? I'm not even sure what that means. Is it that this guy actually earns less than he did 22 years ago, or he just doesn't earn as much as he'd like and claims that? I know lots of people who say things that are straight up false just because they like to complain. And if that's actually true, why the **** did he stay there that long? Assuming he's at least as competent at his job as he was 22 years ago (and I'd assume moreso) he should be able to make more money somewhere else.

Areas we delivered to were deemed "low/no profit" and so those areas deliveries are handed off to another carrier. The guy I meantioned has personal reasons for staying, but those reasons would not get him hired at another carrier. Nothing illegal.

TirithRR wrote:

I work in a non union factory, and from 2007 to 20011 I didn't receive a raise. Actually took a 10% mandatory pay cut in 2008. Also didn't receive any profit sharing contributions to 401k. They also don't match 401k contributions at all. And except for 2008 I didn't receive any bonuses (2008 was special circumstances involving 100+hour weeks on a 40 hour a week salary).

What stops employees from leaving? Nothing really, we have a very high turnover rate on employees. Probably about 65%+ of the hourly employees are temp workers from various manpower providers.

The 401k here blows. Not even management glances at it. On the dock we are on a over the road drivers weekly hours. Meaning that we do not see over time until we hit over 60 hours in the week. They make sure to give us off until next pay period when we get too close to that. Although things have slowed vastly that it isn't an issue anymore. Unless I get to work both outbound and inbound. I worked 70 hours for two weeks. They ******* about it but there was no other alternative at the time. Paying someone over 20 dollars in OT, yeah they weren't thrilled.

Sure. Manufacturing jobs are taking a hit in the US. I'll suggest that has nothing to do with being a big or small business and everything to do with external market conditions affecting manufacturing jobs in the US. As I've said repeatedly (in several threads), labor is paid based on a function of the market value of what that labor produces. This isn't really about "big corporations" though. I'm mainly pointing at the absurd method people use to target their objections when they should be looking at the market forces in the industries in question for their answers.

Since we're sharing "raise" stories. In January I will have been with my current employer for 7 years. All but two of those years I've received a raise. This past year was a promotion *and* a raise. The 2 years of wage freeze were also a hiring freeze. Point is, different companies weathered the financial crisis differently. Up until the beginning of this year, I thought I would be looking for a new career.

____________________________

People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Theophany wrote:YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU. someproteinguy wrote:Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist. Astarin wrote:One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.

The first time was because I got impatient waiting on our CO to talk to, so I stormed into his office/tent while he was in a meeting with the Brigadier General in charge of the compound and made him look bad over my undisclosed complaints. The second time was because of a lazy Air Force Specialist I made cry because he didn't want to do his job, but his command was friends with another command and it put me in hot water. It was more ceremonial but it had to be done to appease people. At least now I don't have to worry about losing money over making people feel bad.

____________________________

George Carlin wrote:

I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

So basically you're an impatient ******* and that's why you got demoted twice?

____________________________

Theophany wrote:YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU. someproteinguy wrote:Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist. Astarin wrote:One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.

So basically YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN LOLGAXE, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.

____________________________

Theophany wrote:YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU. someproteinguy wrote:Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist. Astarin wrote:One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.

False. I work for a corporation, and even in the complete absence of a single labor law requiring my employer give me a raise, or a union forcing it via threatened strike, I've gotten some pretty significant raises over the last 12 years. My experience may not be completely typical in terms of scale, but it's certainly typical in the broad sense of "getting a raise". You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who has been working for the same corporation for the last 12 years and is worse off economically today than 12 years ago.

Nice try.

The average income in the US has been stagnant for pretty much any occupation over any education level for the last 12 years or so, (closer to 14 but it did grow a bit in 1999 so ya, 12 years.) Since the turn of the millenium the average pay has decreased about 5.4% from 2000 (31,500 to 29,800) so while you may have seen a raise on average people saw a reduction in pay. Jobs being out sourced through the 00's was a leading contributor to this.

In the same period of time the CPI has risen ~21% the power of the consumer dollar in 2000 was .581 (compared to 1982 Dollar or 1.00 on CPI.) Today that same dollar is now .459.

Not only are people on average making 5.4% less everything they consume is 21% more expensive, and that isn't even including the ~23% increase to production costs, which are generally rolled into the cost of a product.

(this is where id litter some links to CPI and Average Income Charts but I know you don't like facts so I wont waste my time.)

False. I work for a corporation, and even in the complete absence of a single labor law requiring my employer give me a raise, or a union forcing it via threatened strike, I've gotten some pretty significant raises over the last 12 years. My experience may not be completely typical in terms of scale, but it's certainly typical in the broad sense of "getting a raise". You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who has been working for the same corporation for the last 12 years and is worse off economically today than 12 years ago.

Nice try.

The average income in the US has been stagnant for pretty much any occupation over any education level for the last 12 years or so, (closer to 14 but it did grow a bit in 1999 so ya, 12 years.) Since the turn of the millenium the average pay has decreased about 5.4% from 2000 (31,500 to 29,800) so while you may have seen a raise on average people saw a reduction in pay. Jobs being out sourced through the 00's was a leading contributor to this.

You are confusing flat average national pay relative to inflation with whether or not people get raises. Let me explain why this is a silly way to measure things (at least silly in this context). There have been 12 years since 2000. That's 12 years of young people entering the workplace (most of them at minimum wage). That's 12 years of old people retiring (most of them at much greater than minimum wage). That's 12 years of everyone in between increasing their own salaries. Just because the average of the whole has stayed the same (or even decreased) does not mean that the average individual within that economy's salary has stayed the same (or decreased).

This is the biggest mistake most people make when thinking about wages. We don't live in a static economic world. You can't divide people up into economic ranges and treat them as static groups. Most people who are in the bottom 20% of wage earners will not be in the bottom 20% 10 years later. Why? Because as they get older, they get better paying jobs. They are replaced by a new set of people (mostly young kids entering the workplace). Because of this constant mostly upward moving trend, you can't just look at how some range is doing relatively speaking and then claim that those in that area are worse off than they were X years ago because the overwhelming majority of them weren't in that group X years ago.

It's trivially easy to construct an economic model where every single employee gets a raise every single year, yet the average earnings of the whole decrease each year. You have to remember that our job market represents a constant flow of new people entering at the bottom, and old people retiring somewhat farther up towards the top. From a macro economic perspective, what you're talking about has some value, but it does not have anything to do with what I was talking about earlier (which is individual's wages over time, and the ability to "get ahead").

Quote:

In the same period of time the CPI has risen ~21% the power of the consumer dollar in 2000 was .581 (compared to 1982 Dollar or 1.00 on CPI.) Today that same dollar is now .459.

Um... Those numbers don't mean what you think they mean. You failed econ 101, didn't you?

Quote:

Not only are people on average making 5.4% less everything they consume is 21% more expensive, and that isn't even including the ~23% increase to production costs, which are generally rolled into the cost of a product.

You *really* need to understand how those numbers are derived. You're mixing and matching values that don't actually work together the way you're trying to make them work.

Look. No one's saying that the economy isn't in a bad spot right now. In fact, that's the point of this thread. I'm just not sure that you're pointing the "blame" in the right direction or even really recognizing the real problems. The problem isn't with evil employers outsourcing jobs and cutting wages. Those are reactions to economic factors around us. The problems lie with poor economic decisions, some at the federal level and some at the state levels. Some of those decisions have been building over decades, some are more recent. I guess I'm not sure what point you're actually trying to make here. Are you denying that some people (most people actually) earn more money today than they earned 12 years ago? Of course they do. Is the economy as a whole worse off than 12 years ago? Absolutely. But those two are not mutually exclusive.

That's 12 years of everyone in between increasing their own salaries. Just because the average of the whole has stayed the same (or even decreased) does not mean that the average individual within that economy's salary has stayed the same (or decreased).

Almost 2 days of thinking about it and the best you come up with is that the average person isn't reflected in the average of the nation. Come on man do you even try anymore?

Quote:

It's trivially easy to construct an economic model where every single employee gets a raise every single year, yet the average earnings of the whole decrease each year. You have to remember that our job market represents a constant flow of new people entering at the bottom, and old people retiring somewhat farther up towards the top. From a macro economic perspective, what you're talking about has some value, but it does not have anything to do with what I was talking about earlier (which is individual's wages over time, and the ability to "get ahead")

.

Of course it is trivially easy to construct something which is supported by easily found data. The rate of income in the US on average has decreased, that means on average people have been losing money. It isn't even anywhere close to being a positive income market because the expenses of the market have increased more so than the money coming in. Basic math Gbaji, simple grade school addition and subtraction. The average income in america has declined, meaning the average american has not seen an increase in pay, but a decrease, and over time that individuals income has not been sufficient to get ahead. If the wonderful raise fairy was as generous as you pretend it was, then the 2008 recession likely would not have taken place at near the extent it did.

Quote:

You *really* need to understand how those numbers are derived. You're mixing and matching values that don't actually work together the way you're trying to make them work.

You really need to start considering facts and data, and not Gbajisms. The CPI is the go to standard for inflation calculation. It is how we can compare our current economic value with that of say 10 years ago. 10 years ago your dollar was worth more than it is now, **** you can check that easily enough compared to the valuation of other world currencies as well. **** in 2000 the Canadian Dollar was happily grooving along at around 70 cents, 12 years later it is consistently at par or better.

The valuation of your dollar makes it cost more to live, the average pay has declined over the same period...again it is simple math and it does not take a rocket scientist to tell you that income is stagnant and not sufficient to "get ahead".

Quote:

The problem isn't with evil employers outsourcing jobs and cutting wages. Those are reactions to economic factors around us. The problems lie with poor economic decisions, some at the federal level and some at the state levels. Some of those decisions have been building over decades, some are more recent. I guess I'm not sure what point you're actually trying to make here.

You are right it has nothing to do with the mid 00's consecutive growth of CEO's average pay, nothing to do with the shut down and out source of jobs to cheaper wage markets, so corporate could adopt some of the largest golden parachute deals ever. I agree it is the governments fault, it is the governments fault for not sticking up for the little guy, letting the big wigs walk out with buckets of cash and reducing the average wage of the American workforce.

But you continue to cook up your dream statistics about wages, cost of living, and corporate greed go read some facts and data, get a grade school kid to do the math for you (because it is so hard) and then come on back. If you honestly think a declining national average is associated to an increase of new folks to old folks you are deluding yourself, but then again, thats about average for you.

It's trivially easy to construct an economic model where every single employee gets a raise every single year, yet the average earnings of the whole decrease each year. You have to remember that our job market represents a constant flow of new people entering at the bottom, and old people retiring somewhat farther up towards the top. From a macro economic perspective, what you're talking about has some value, but it does not have anything to do with what I was talking about earlier (which is individual's wages over time, and the ability to "get ahead")

.

Of course it is trivially easy to construct something which is supported by easily found data. The rate of income in the US on average has decreased, that means on average people have been losing money.

No, it doesn't. "People" have not been losing money on average. The average pay for a given section of the economy is lower. You completely failed to grasp my point. Those are not the same thing. A person moves through the economy, starting at a low paying entry level position, then moving to a higher paying career job, then progressing over their lifetime via raises and promotions until they retire. Even if the entry level positions pay less after inflation than they did 10 years ago, this does not mean that an individuals pay is lower after inflation than it was 10 years ago. This is true for all cases except those where someone remains in the same entry level position with the same pay for 10 years.

This concept applies to all levels of the economy. Most people move upwards through the economic layers as they get older. So while decreased average pay after inflation is significant because it reflects how well someone in my economic level is doing relative to how well someone in the same layer was X number of years ago, it does not mean that I'm worse off than I was X years ago. If you can't understand this, you can't intelligently assess the meaning of such statistics.

Quote:

It isn't even anywhere close to being a positive income market because the expenses of the market have increased more so than the money coming in. Basic math Gbaji, simple grade school addition and subtraction. The average income in america has declined, meaning the average american has not seen an increase in pay, but a decrease, and over time that individuals income has not been sufficient to get ahead.

Nope. As I said, those are two completely different things. All that means is that someone working the same job that I worked 10 years ago is worse off than I was 10 years ago. It does not mean that I am worse off than I was 10 years ago.

Quote:

If the wonderful raise fairy was as generous as you pretend it was, then the 2008 recession likely would not have taken place at near the extent it did.

One has nothing to do with the other.

Quote:

Quote:

You *really* need to understand how those numbers are derived. You're mixing and matching values that don't actually work together the way you're trying to make them work.

You really need to start considering facts and data, and not Gbajisms. The CPI is the go to standard for inflation calculation. It is how we can compare our current economic value with that of say 10 years ago.

Correct. But you're using the numbers wrong. I've explained why at least three times now.

Quote:

The valuation of your dollar makes it cost more to live, the average pay has declined over the same period...again it is simple math and it does not take a rocket scientist to tell you that income is stagnant and not sufficient to "get ahead".

Again though, you need to understand the difference between individual income and average income across all earners at any given time. Those are not the same thing. Average pay declining over time does not mean that individual income is stagnant. It's statements like that which make me conclude that you really don't know what you're talking about.